Rather than parsing these Delphic pronouncements, the message should simply be that every state where GOP is in charge is eliminating abortion, terrorizing providers, and putting women’s lives in jeopardy. End of story.
GOP: "We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights."
Valenti: "The GOP’s platform has invoked the Fourteenth Amendment for years for a reason. As law professor Liz Sepper tweeted today, it 'commits to constitutional personhood for fetuses…[and] takes the view that it is not a mere statute but rather the constitution that bans abortion nationwide.' "
14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What am l missing here?
How can a fetus (defined by the Alabama Supreme Court as an “unborn child” ) be considered a citizen when it doesn't meet the criteria included in the 14th Amendment -- "All persons *BORN* or naturalized in the United States . . . "
Fetuses are *UNBORN* -- they are neither persons *NOR* citizens under the 14th Amendment (until birth or naturalization in US)
ALso in kff on June 27, see "Faulty Science and Misinformation Impacts Knowledge About and Access to Abortion Pills and Contraceptives," https://connect.kff.org/kff-health-misinformation-monitor-june-27-2024. The May 2024 kff tracking poll found that only 54% of survey respondents had heard of mifepristone. 43% of women are not sure whether medication abortion is legal inthe state where they live. In states where abortion is limited, 54% of respondents were not sure whether medication abortion was legal, also true in ban states (44%) and states where abortion is legal (41%). On the other hand, 13% of adults and 11% of women in ban states incorrectly believe medication abortion is legal in their state.
I've been too sick at heart to keep up with developments, so sorry, these are a little older.
Laurie Sobel, Mabel Felix and Alina Salganicoff "Emergency Abortion Care to Preserve the Health of Pregnant People: SCOTUS, EMTALA, and Beyond," kff.org (June 27, 2024), https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/emergency-abortion-care-scotus-em[...] discussing the EMTALA cases, Moyle v US/US v. Idaho. The case was remanded to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings, and reinstates the original district court order forbidding enforcement of the Idaho law to the extent it contradicts EMTALA. The case is probably just going to go right back to the Supreme Court (assuming there still is a Supreme Court, by then they might just send everything to the Office of the Emperor).
The kff article discusses another case, Texas v. Becerra, where the federal government also asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether state abortion bans are preempted by EMTALA. This case kicked off when Texas sued the federal Department of Health and Human Services, arguing that EMTALA does not give the federal government the power to compel clinicians to p[erform abortion care. A Texas federal district court issued a permanent injunction against HHS enforcement of EMTALA to provide abortions forbidden by Texas law. It was upheld by the Fifth Circuit in January 2024. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to grant certiorari. The article points out that yet another delightful feature of Project 2025 is a specific call to withdraw the Biden Administration EMTALA guidance and stop the federal government from investigating charges that abortion care was not provided in an emergency.
The article notes that people who need abortions IN IDAHO to preserve their health are covered by the Supreme Court decision, but people in the five other states with bans that do not except risks to the heath of the pregnant person (Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas)--where about 8.6 million potentially pregnant people live. Nearly all of them (6.4 million) live in Texas. Furthermore, even in states where the abortion ban makes an exception for the health of the pregnant person, doctors may still be hesitant to perform emergency abortions because they are afraid they will be criminalized if the care is found not to satisfy a narrow state exception.
An Idaho doctor has brought a federal court suit to challenge the Idaho law, and state-court cases have been filed in Idaho, Indiana, and Tennessee state courts challenging the terms of state bans. As you would imagine, the Texas law has already been challenged--but unsuccessfully, the state court finding that the state constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion other than to save the life of the pregnant person: see https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf.
Very true! But the Supreme Court is, well, the Supreme Court, and the Fifth Circuit just wishes it was. Meanwhile, the district court judges in Texas wish they were the Emperor.
I would like to see a direct source for the above quotes. If you go to the RNC website, there is a link to the 2016 platform PDF file, which includes a very lengthy explanation of the anti-abortion platform under "The Fifth Amendment: Protecting Human Life".
Go to the link at "Learn More" to see it yourself,
Here is a quote from that document:
"Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth."
I have searched google for the Republican National Committee in various ways looking for the original document quoted above here at AED and found nothing. None of the news sources that use the same quote have any original links either.
While I think we should assume that the Republican Party very clearly has demonstrated a commitment to gestational personhood, I don't see where this quote actually says anything about any kind of gestational personhood. If that quote is a real summary, compared to the 2016 platform, it is pretty weak. Considering that Trump rode into the WH in 2016 on this platform, we might wonder further what it all means. Remember Pence as VP?
Considering the confidence with which the Trump campaign looks forward to November, we might also consider that a new narrative due to the political reaction to the death of RvW has dealt a death blow to the cause. Late term abortions used to be the gold standard for the anti-abortion narrative. Now it is huge motivator for advancing pro-choice. Tripping into the WH with these crippled fanatics could be a real albatross.
Not sure I understand what you mean by "late term abortions as the gold standard for the anti-abortion narrative" and now "for advancing pro-choice." Late-term "abortions" or medical pregnancy terminations in the third trimester are not done purely by "choice". No sane woman walks in during the third trimester and says "I don't want this baby, please give me an abortion."
Yes, a woman is given options in emergency situations for what medically may need to be done. A woman also used to be able to decide in all 50 states (no longer the case), if she was carrying a non-viable fetus that would die at birth or soon after, whether she would want an induction to terminate the pregnancy sooner rather than waiting until term. Waiting can sometimes cause more serious pregnancy-related health problems.
I have no idea where Trump or his equally insane minions get the idea an infant would be killed after birth. Does not happen. There are fetuses that die during delivery or soon after due to problems with the delivery or overwhelming fetal anomalies, but no one purposely "kills" an infant after delivery as Trump assests.
I also think the GOP's recent attempts to act as if they're equivocating on their previous anti-obstetrical care stance is because they now get that this election is actually trending on women coming out full force in support of women's rights and obstetrical care rights. We do not want what is stated for women in Project 2025.
In the days when the anti-abortionists included a terrorist front, late term abortions were the last argument preserving the hysteria against abortion without actually going into the idea that infants are killed after birth. The popular description bandied about was "partial birth abortions" regarding hydrocephalic neonates where it was said a scissors was inserted into the skull to kill it. My understanding at the time was that this made it possible for fluid to be relieved in the neonate so that the woman would not risk injury trying to pass the inflated skull made hard by fluid pressure.
And so Trump advances this narrative equating abortion with infantacide and euthenasia. Now, it has become acceptable to consider late term abortions for "nonviable fetuses", and properly so. But this just prevents what might be argued as euthenasia at birth for catastrophically deformed fetuses when it is very clear that the infant will not survive long after birth and suffers during that time.
Things have changed dramatically. The anti-abortionists are rapidly running out of inflammatory rhetoric to advance their cause and the religious authorities behind it all, especially the Catholic Church, are increasingly placing hope on power over reason.
Thank you. I do have to say that with all my years in medical centers I never saw or heard of anyone doing a "partial birth abortion". It may have occurred somewhere along the line before there were adequate surgical facilities for emergency deliveries or prior to having ultrasound and other visualization equipment. There may have been emergencies at one point where, knowing a fetus had died, someone may have drained hydrocephalic fluid prior to delivery, but the surgeries I worked on were always C-sections if that problem arose. I often wonder how much of the propaganda and nightmare stories one hears are actually the nightmare stories passed along by our grandmothers, or especially great-grandmothers, from the "old days" prior to scientific advances.
Yes, there is a lot of antiquated thinking in the debate from both sides. Something simple as pregnancy tests represent a revolution in technology that has radically changed the nature of reproductive rights. That and mifepristone. It used to be that early in a pregnancy, when it was just a missed period and sexual experience, only a test at the doctor's office could tell you if you were pregnant.
Every debate on abortion should start with the question: “Do you believe life begins at conception ?” They have to answer yes to that, then the rest of the position falls. “Is abortion murder?” “then is IVF?” “IUDs?” “the pill?”.
Ever so much this ^^^^ And they'll tell you it is a long-term held tenet of their religion...which was pulled out of the moral majority's anus in the 70's with the help of these fruitcakes.
"In the months before the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade, the Willkes published How to teach people the pro-life story, a modern-day sales manual on how to effectively market the movement. It was a play-by-play on how the Willkes communicated pro-life arguments so that other speakers might follow their lead. As described in the book, they never showed visuals of embryos less than six weeks old because “the audience may change their minds from their conviction that this is a human life.” They began their lectures with pictures of babies nearing full-term and subsequently moved through the fetal development process in reverse chronological order, asking the audience with each image: is this still a human? Their intention, as explained in the book, was to start with a picture that resembled a human to anchor the audience in the belief that they were looking at a living, breathing person."
I’ve certainly been aware that they were manipulating people & flat out lying, but was never aware of that particular play book. Thank you for that info
True but we should make them say it. Saying “Life begins at conception” has become a reflex and any time anyone uses that phrase we should actually make them say they believe an unimplanted fertilized egg that may not even be viable is more of a person than a girl or woman. The statement should never go unchallenged.
Notice that we didn't need Project 2025 (yet) to cripple and gut the modern statecraft that was the crown jewel of American democracy. trump and SCOTUS did that already: 1) official bribes and corruption are legal now (Snyder); 2) clean air, water, safe drugs and other regulatory functions that keep people safe are out the window (Chevron); 3) immunity for the perpetrator in chief to commit whatever ...
In my first 5 years here, I remember telling my sister back home how intellectual and smart people in the government are, including politicians. Coming from India where corruption was rampant everywhere and politicians were hooligans using violence, America seemed so ideal. I cry for what trump is turning it into, morally abhorrent and intellectually bereft.
Watch the video in the link. Even if one of those comes to fruition like a national abortion ban which is most likely, America is lost. He will definitely round up undocumented immigrants and put them in a camp, (like China does with uyghurs) and make an example out of a vulnerable group.
Rather than parsing these Delphic pronouncements, the message should simply be that every state where GOP is in charge is eliminating abortion, terrorizing providers, and putting women’s lives in jeopardy. End of story.
FYI Jessica...
https://x.com/OrianaBeLike/status/1811071198417031196
Oriana González
@OrianaBeLike
Katy Talento, Trump’s fmr lead health adviser, shows support for the Comstock Act at NatCon:
“There is a law that says organizations are not allowed to ship abortion pills, … other devices and equipment used for abortions”
“This is on the agenda for a pro-life administration”
.
GOP: "We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights."
Valenti: "The GOP’s platform has invoked the Fourteenth Amendment for years for a reason. As law professor Liz Sepper tweeted today, it 'commits to constitutional personhood for fetuses…[and] takes the view that it is not a mere statute but rather the constitution that bans abortion nationwide.' "
14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What am l missing here?
How can a fetus (defined by the Alabama Supreme Court as an “unborn child” ) be considered a citizen when it doesn't meet the criteria included in the 14th Amendment -- "All persons *BORN* or naturalized in the United States . . . "
Fetuses are *UNBORN* -- they are neither persons *NOR* citizens under the 14th Amendment (until birth or naturalization in US)
Can someone clue me in? Thanks!
.
I think you nailed it & agree with your interpretation of the 14th, the operative word is: BORN
Per usual, the clear-eyed media coverage can be found on The 19th*:
https://19thnews.org/2024/07/republican-national-convention-party-platform-fetuses-abortion-ivf/?utm_source=The+19th&utm_campaign=0b6a662822-19th-newsletters-daily-0709&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a35c3279be-0b6a662822-382627260
ALso in kff on June 27, see "Faulty Science and Misinformation Impacts Knowledge About and Access to Abortion Pills and Contraceptives," https://connect.kff.org/kff-health-misinformation-monitor-june-27-2024. The May 2024 kff tracking poll found that only 54% of survey respondents had heard of mifepristone. 43% of women are not sure whether medication abortion is legal inthe state where they live. In states where abortion is limited, 54% of respondents were not sure whether medication abortion was legal, also true in ban states (44%) and states where abortion is legal (41%). On the other hand, 13% of adults and 11% of women in ban states incorrectly believe medication abortion is legal in their state.
The lack of information, knowledge among the people who need it the most, is just heartbreaking.
I've been too sick at heart to keep up with developments, so sorry, these are a little older.
Laurie Sobel, Mabel Felix and Alina Salganicoff "Emergency Abortion Care to Preserve the Health of Pregnant People: SCOTUS, EMTALA, and Beyond," kff.org (June 27, 2024), https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/emergency-abortion-care-scotus-em[...] discussing the EMTALA cases, Moyle v US/US v. Idaho. The case was remanded to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings, and reinstates the original district court order forbidding enforcement of the Idaho law to the extent it contradicts EMTALA. The case is probably just going to go right back to the Supreme Court (assuming there still is a Supreme Court, by then they might just send everything to the Office of the Emperor).
The kff article discusses another case, Texas v. Becerra, where the federal government also asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether state abortion bans are preempted by EMTALA. This case kicked off when Texas sued the federal Department of Health and Human Services, arguing that EMTALA does not give the federal government the power to compel clinicians to p[erform abortion care. A Texas federal district court issued a permanent injunction against HHS enforcement of EMTALA to provide abortions forbidden by Texas law. It was upheld by the Fifth Circuit in January 2024. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to grant certiorari. The article points out that yet another delightful feature of Project 2025 is a specific call to withdraw the Biden Administration EMTALA guidance and stop the federal government from investigating charges that abortion care was not provided in an emergency.
The article notes that people who need abortions IN IDAHO to preserve their health are covered by the Supreme Court decision, but people in the five other states with bans that do not except risks to the heath of the pregnant person (Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas)--where about 8.6 million potentially pregnant people live. Nearly all of them (6.4 million) live in Texas. Furthermore, even in states where the abortion ban makes an exception for the health of the pregnant person, doctors may still be hesitant to perform emergency abortions because they are afraid they will be criminalized if the care is found not to satisfy a narrow state exception.
An Idaho doctor has brought a federal court suit to challenge the Idaho law, and state-court cases have been filed in Idaho, Indiana, and Tennessee state courts challenging the terms of state bans. As you would imagine, the Texas law has already been challenged--but unsuccessfully, the state court finding that the state constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion other than to save the life of the pregnant person: see https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458610/230629.pdf.
The 5th Circuit is just as bad, actually worse, that the current horrible 6-3 scotus.
Very true! But the Supreme Court is, well, the Supreme Court, and the Fifth Circuit just wishes it was. Meanwhile, the district court judges in Texas wish they were the Emperor.
Here's a link to a podcast "Shocker: Trump's New Abortion Shift Turns Out to Be A Big Scam"
https://newrepublic.com/article/183563/shocker-trumps-sudden-new-abortion-shift-turns-big-scam?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tnr_daily
I would like to see a direct source for the above quotes. If you go to the RNC website, there is a link to the 2016 platform PDF file, which includes a very lengthy explanation of the anti-abortion platform under "The Fifth Amendment: Protecting Human Life".
https://www.gop.com/about-our-party/
Go to the link at "Learn More" to see it yourself,
Here is a quote from that document:
"Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth."
I have searched google for the Republican National Committee in various ways looking for the original document quoted above here at AED and found nothing. None of the news sources that use the same quote have any original links either.
While I think we should assume that the Republican Party very clearly has demonstrated a commitment to gestational personhood, I don't see where this quote actually says anything about any kind of gestational personhood. If that quote is a real summary, compared to the 2016 platform, it is pretty weak. Considering that Trump rode into the WH in 2016 on this platform, we might wonder further what it all means. Remember Pence as VP?
Considering the confidence with which the Trump campaign looks forward to November, we might also consider that a new narrative due to the political reaction to the death of RvW has dealt a death blow to the cause. Late term abortions used to be the gold standard for the anti-abortion narrative. Now it is huge motivator for advancing pro-choice. Tripping into the WH with these crippled fanatics could be a real albatross.
Not sure I understand what you mean by "late term abortions as the gold standard for the anti-abortion narrative" and now "for advancing pro-choice." Late-term "abortions" or medical pregnancy terminations in the third trimester are not done purely by "choice". No sane woman walks in during the third trimester and says "I don't want this baby, please give me an abortion."
Yes, a woman is given options in emergency situations for what medically may need to be done. A woman also used to be able to decide in all 50 states (no longer the case), if she was carrying a non-viable fetus that would die at birth or soon after, whether she would want an induction to terminate the pregnancy sooner rather than waiting until term. Waiting can sometimes cause more serious pregnancy-related health problems.
I have no idea where Trump or his equally insane minions get the idea an infant would be killed after birth. Does not happen. There are fetuses that die during delivery or soon after due to problems with the delivery or overwhelming fetal anomalies, but no one purposely "kills" an infant after delivery as Trump assests.
I also think the GOP's recent attempts to act as if they're equivocating on their previous anti-obstetrical care stance is because they now get that this election is actually trending on women coming out full force in support of women's rights and obstetrical care rights. We do not want what is stated for women in Project 2025.
In the days when the anti-abortionists included a terrorist front, late term abortions were the last argument preserving the hysteria against abortion without actually going into the idea that infants are killed after birth. The popular description bandied about was "partial birth abortions" regarding hydrocephalic neonates where it was said a scissors was inserted into the skull to kill it. My understanding at the time was that this made it possible for fluid to be relieved in the neonate so that the woman would not risk injury trying to pass the inflated skull made hard by fluid pressure.
And so Trump advances this narrative equating abortion with infantacide and euthenasia. Now, it has become acceptable to consider late term abortions for "nonviable fetuses", and properly so. But this just prevents what might be argued as euthenasia at birth for catastrophically deformed fetuses when it is very clear that the infant will not survive long after birth and suffers during that time.
Things have changed dramatically. The anti-abortionists are rapidly running out of inflammatory rhetoric to advance their cause and the religious authorities behind it all, especially the Catholic Church, are increasingly placing hope on power over reason.
Thank you. I do have to say that with all my years in medical centers I never saw or heard of anyone doing a "partial birth abortion". It may have occurred somewhere along the line before there were adequate surgical facilities for emergency deliveries or prior to having ultrasound and other visualization equipment. There may have been emergencies at one point where, knowing a fetus had died, someone may have drained hydrocephalic fluid prior to delivery, but the surgeries I worked on were always C-sections if that problem arose. I often wonder how much of the propaganda and nightmare stories one hears are actually the nightmare stories passed along by our grandmothers, or especially great-grandmothers, from the "old days" prior to scientific advances.
Same here, probably because it is a made-up term.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12294330/
Yes, there is a lot of antiquated thinking in the debate from both sides. Something simple as pregnancy tests represent a revolution in technology that has radically changed the nature of reproductive rights. That and mifepristone. It used to be that early in a pregnancy, when it was just a missed period and sexual experience, only a test at the doctor's office could tell you if you were pregnant.
How do we , who are pro choice, counter this false narrative? I would hope to see articles and opinions from journalists reporting the truth.
Rollingstone echoing Jessica.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-republicans-hide-anti-abortion-plans-rnc-platform-1235055438/
Sleight of Hand
To Elect Trump, Republicans Are Hiding Their Extreme Anti-Abortion Plans
The gambit is working — major news outlets quickly reported that the Republican Party is “softening” its position on abortion
July 8, 2024
Every debate on abortion should start with the question: “Do you believe life begins at conception ?” They have to answer yes to that, then the rest of the position falls. “Is abortion murder?” “then is IVF?” “IUDs?” “the pill?”.
Also, make them define “conception.”
I’m pretty sure that to those fruitcakes, as soon as that squiggly little sperm touches the ovum, it becomes a full fledged human. They are nuts.
Ever so much this ^^^^ And they'll tell you it is a long-term held tenet of their religion...which was pulled out of the moral majority's anus in the 70's with the help of these fruitcakes.
"In the months before the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade, the Willkes published How to teach people the pro-life story, a modern-day sales manual on how to effectively market the movement. It was a play-by-play on how the Willkes communicated pro-life arguments so that other speakers might follow their lead. As described in the book, they never showed visuals of embryos less than six weeks old because “the audience may change their minds from their conviction that this is a human life.” They began their lectures with pictures of babies nearing full-term and subsequently moved through the fetal development process in reverse chronological order, asking the audience with each image: is this still a human? Their intention, as explained in the book, was to start with a picture that resembled a human to anchor the audience in the belief that they were looking at a living, breathing person."
https://www.printmag.com/political-design/the-semiotics-of-a-movement-how-pro-life-became-a-marketing-campaign/
I’ve certainly been aware that they were manipulating people & flat out lying, but was never aware of that particular play book. Thank you for that info
You are welcome, share it far and wide.
True but we should make them say it. Saying “Life begins at conception” has become a reflex and any time anyone uses that phrase we should actually make them say they believe an unimplanted fertilized egg that may not even be viable is more of a person than a girl or woman. The statement should never go unchallenged.
🎯
Notice that we didn't need Project 2025 (yet) to cripple and gut the modern statecraft that was the crown jewel of American democracy. trump and SCOTUS did that already: 1) official bribes and corruption are legal now (Snyder); 2) clean air, water, safe drugs and other regulatory functions that keep people safe are out the window (Chevron); 3) immunity for the perpetrator in chief to commit whatever ...
In my first 5 years here, I remember telling my sister back home how intellectual and smart people in the government are, including politicians. Coming from India where corruption was rampant everywhere and politicians were hooligans using violence, America seemed so ideal. I cry for what trump is turning it into, morally abhorrent and intellectually bereft.
It's been really bad watching it happen from its insane mythic beginning, too.
Thank you for that perspective.
When did you move here?
Thanks Padma! I love your comments and links provided. Appreciate your insight
I find it’s best not to comment on trolls who try to gaslight and change the narrative in conversations. I will do this moving forward 👍❤️
Agree don't engage with them substantively.
Watch the video in the link. Even if one of those comes to fruition like a national abortion ban which is most likely, America is lost. He will definitely round up undocumented immigrants and put them in a camp, (like China does with uyghurs) and make an example out of a vulnerable group.
https://x.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1810433682337096177
My suggestion to the readers here, listen to Browder with Preet Bharara's podcast on how Putin transformed Russia into a dictatorship: https://podcasts.apple.com/in/podcast/the-death-of-sergei-magnitsky-with-bill-browder/id1265845136?i=1000394045464
find sources on other examples China, Hungary, Belarus...
Thanks
MAGA Maggie of NYT doing their lord's work! Shun her!